A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

lol, you're right, it's all fine, I am just picking at you because of my own faults. Keep blaming your readers, that seems to be a really good tactic to convince people.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, Lessans agreed with Morrison, as stated here:

so the point stands that he believed that the Universe was designed by an intelligent being of some sort, and that his discoveries were also part of this design.

No, he said nothing about the Universe being designed by an intelligent "being" LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he found that Creationist Apologetic 101 silliness convincing, then he did not understand probabilities at all, nor did he have an accurate concept of the size of the Universe. So, why should I think such a person is the holder of universal truths?

Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws. These mathematical laws govern our universe which is why a greater understanding of these laws are allowing us to find solutions to the problems facing our world. He didn't refer to God as some kind of "being" pulling strings. When he says God is real, he means that this world is here due to mathematical laws.

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws.

Unsupported assertion.

Do "physical laws" or "mathematical laws" control or govern the world, or merely describe the world?

Now, about those infinite trials ... were you planning to tackle that question, or just ignore it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol, you're right, it's all fine, I am just picking at you because of my own faults. Keep blaming your readers, that seems to be a really good tactic to convince people.

I'm not trying to convince people of anything. And I'm not blaming the readers. I'm pointing out that you are nitpicking and trying to show your superiority. It's just another subtle put down which you, and a lot of others in here, are very good at.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Unsupported assertion.

Do "physical laws" or "mathematical laws" control or govern the world, or merely describe the world?

Now, about those infinite trials ... were you planning to tackle that question, or just ignore it?

I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he said nothing about the Universe being designed by an intelligent "being" LadyShea.

Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws. These mathematical laws govern our universe which is why a greater understanding of these laws are allowing us to find solutions to the problems facing our world. He didn't refer to God as some kind of "being" pulling strings. When he says God is real, he means that this world is here due to mathematical laws.

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true.

A guiding Supreme Intelligence (noun) is not a being? A guiding Supreme Intelligence doing some sort of guiding is actually mathematical laws? How can mathematical laws be an intelligence or guide? Why did Lessans mangle perfectly good definitions like that?

Intelligence: An intelligent, incorporeal being

Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance?[/I]

And when I quoted and responded to this sentence you said it didn't matter, then said it was Morrison's words.

So no, I do not believe a Supreme Intelligence is guiding the Universe. Now what?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.

What you believe is entirely irrelevant. We're discussing what can be shown and proven, especially what, if anything, was shown and proven by Lessans. Neither your personal incredulity regarding the origins of the world and universe nor his are even tangentially related.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.

But this book isn't supposed to be about belief (faith), but undeniable facts. Every claim needs to be analyzed, peacegirl. You don't get to cherry pick.

[ceptimus]

Another objection to the 'moving towards greatest satisfaction' premise is the obvious counter-examples: people who commit suicide, and those who self-harm.

Now if you choose to argue that people who self harm are mentally ill, and therefore don't obey the premise, then you've admitted that the premise is not universal - you'd need to put in a clause like this:

People are compelled to move towards the the direction of greatest (expected) satisfaction, except for those people who are not so compelled - whom we shall label 'mentally ill people'.

[LadyShea]

According to peacegirl, harmful choices are still more satisfactory to those making them.

[ceptimus]

Why?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1003250]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he said nothing about the Universe being designed by an intelligent "being" LadyShea.

Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws. These mathematical laws govern our universe which is why a greater understanding of these laws are allowing us to find solutions to the problems facing our world. He didn't refer to God as some kind of "being" pulling strings. When he says God is real, he means that this world is here due to mathematical laws.

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true.

A guiding Supreme Intelligence (noun) is not a being? A guiding Supreme Intelligence doing some sort of guiding is actually mathematical laws? How can mathematical laws be an intelligence or guide? Why did Lessans mangle perfectly good definitions like that?

Dictionary - Yahoo! Education

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are a guide only in the sense that we are being led in a certain direction, hence no free will. The laws don't only guide us, they control our very actions because we can't divorce ourselves from our very own make-up.

Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And when I quoted and responded to this sentence you said it didn't matter, then said it was Morrison's words.

I didn't say it didn't matter that you were quoting the wrong person; I said it didn't matter as far as the veracity of this discovery is concerned.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So no, I do not believe a Supreme Intelligence is guiding the Universe. Now what?

It really doesn't matter whether you believe there is an intelligence or not because this has nothing to do with whether or not this knowledge is valid and sound. No matter what you believe, these laws affect everyone because they are universal.

[LadyShea]

It really doesn't matter because whether you believe this or not because this has nothing to do with the veracity of this discovery. No matter what you believe, these laws affect everyone whether they see it or not.

That is the assertion you are supposed to be supporting through this discussion. Hadn't you better get started with the support?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another objection to the 'moving towards greatest satisfaction' premise is the obvious counter-examples: people who commit suicide, and those who self-harm.

Now if you choose to argue that people who self harm are mentally ill, and therefore don't obey the premise, then you've admitted that the premise is not universal - you'd need to put in a clause like this:

People are compelled to move towards the the direction of greatest (expected) satisfaction, except for those people who are not so compelled - whom we shall label 'mentally ill people'.

Ceptimus, people may be mentally ill and that is why they desire committing suicide; or they have been hurt so much in their life that the desire to live is more distressing than the desire to die. There are many reasons why someone would rather die than live. Regardless, they are still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, even if they are choosing between the lesser of two evils instead of the greater of two goods.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is the assertion you are supposed to be asserting through this discussion. Hadn't you better get started with the support?

This book is not about the proof of God's existence. We're getting off track. If we have peace on earth and you don't believe in the laws that govern our universe, who cares, as long as no one is dying from war, crime, hatred, poverty, accidents, medical errors, depression, or any of the other horrors that we are faced with every day.

[LadyShea]

Then why did Lessans spend so much time on that topic, and why did you include it in the excerpt you posted for this discussion?

How about removing all the irrelevant stuff, and posting only the important bits?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

What you believe is entirely irrelevant. We're discussing what can be shown and proven, especially what, if anything, was shown and proven by Lessans. Neither your personal incredulity regarding the origins of the world and universe nor his are even tangentially related.

I'm in total agreement, so let's move on, or I'm seriously going to end this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did Lessans spend so much time on that topic, and why did you include it in the excerpt you posted for this discussion?

How about removing all the irrelevant stuff, and posting only the important bits?

LadyShea, give it up. Either you follow his reasoning to decide whether he may actually have a discovery, or leave. Don't go off onto tangents to try to prove he has nothing to offer by your sneaky attacks on things totally irrelevant to his discovery.

[LadyShea]

Post or don't post, you can't "end the thread" though

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

What you believe is entirely irrelevant. We're discussing what can be shown and proven, especially what, if anything, was shown and proven by Lessans. Neither your personal incredulity regarding the origins of the world and universe nor his are even tangentially related.

That's because this is not what this book is trying to prove.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!

I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he said nothing about the Universe being designed by an intelligent "being" LadyShea.

Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws. These mathematical laws govern our universe which is why a greater understanding of these laws are allowing us to find solutions to the problems facing our world. He didn't refer to God as some kind of "being" pulling strings. When he says God is real, he means that this world is here due to mathematical laws.

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real otherwise there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you
still believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe
through mathematical laws which include the relation of man with
man, and that everything happens by chance?

Here is another good example of how peacegirl just doesn't understand what she is reading. And it matters not how many times each of you try to make her own quotations clear, she will not get it.

She can't make the connection that no-chance in the creation of the universe implies a creator. Her ability to form associations based on implication just do not work at all. You see that over and over and over again in her posts. Frankly I have no idea why ya'll even try.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!

You're right, maybe I shouldn't have posted it. You are so anal you can't even understand what he was responding to in the context of this discussion. I've learned a lesson.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.

Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!